everstekoog, texel · food chains grou everstekoog empuriabrava clear water through nature. 4...

1

Ruud Kampf

Rob van den Boomen

With Theo Claassen and Lluis Sala

Everstekoog, Texel

discharge ditch

presettling basin

9 parallel ditches with reed/cattail

and aquatic plants

sewage

treatment plant

• constructed in 1994

• research project 1995 –1999

• extended in 2012

Contents

1. Concept development and applicationRuud Kampf

2. Overview researchRob van den Boomen

3. What role can wetland ecologists play?Ruud Kampf

2

Contents




Natural processes are not new

in the Watercycle

Natural processes in drinking

water production AmsterdamArtificial recharge in dunes

t = 100 days

Loenderveen basin

t = 100 days

The source for sewage

• That drinking water:

– is used to transport wastes

– is mixed with rain and groundwater

• This mixture:

– is called waste water

– is a problem and costs a lot of money

+ rain…..

Waterharmonica as a connection

Emissie

aanpak

Water

kwaliteits

aanpak

Water

keten

Water

systeem

Distance from discharge

Biological controled self- purification

Based on McKinney,

1962. Microbiology for sanitary engineers.

3

Based on Hynes, 1960 The biology of polluted waters

Influence of a wastewater discharge

A physical – chemical

B nutrients

C micro-organisms

D macro-organisms

The Waterharmonica:

Waterharmonica

Based on Hynes, 1960 The biology of polluted waters

Bridge between sewage treatment

and surface water

Waste waterSewerage

STP A constructed natural system

to upgrade treated waste water

into a “usable surface water”

Waterharmonica“Providing soft

landing in

nature”Mixing zone European Union

• Discharge of treated waste water to receiving surface water

• Mixing zone allows discharge does not meet quality of receiving water

• Waterharmonica takes the EU-mixing zone out of the EU-water body

• Efffective means to meet the EU-standards

Daphnia food chains

Grou

Everstekoog

Empuriabrava

www.waterharmonica.nl

Clear water through nature

4

Little Crake, Porzana parva, Empuriabrava

Some reports2010 - 2012

Stowa 2013Waterharmonica’s

In The Netherlands

2014

Stowa 2013-08:

Waterharmonica's in Nederland (1996-2012

realised

soon ready

or in

preparation

not in use

Waterharmonica Aqualân Grou- first design -

1,1 ha1,1 ha

5

Texelse kennis toegepast bij zuiveringsmoeras en paaibiotoop bij rwzi Grou

H2O, 2007 (24): 41-43

Aqualân Grou

Three Daphnia ponds

Spawning area for fishFour reed ditches

effluent

Waterharmonica Soerendonk

Fish spawning area, like in Grou

Reed ditches

Daphnia ponds

The Buulder Aa

Kristalbad

Land reformation plan ca. 40 ha

Project cost € 5.055.772

Innovation subsidy € 2.527.886

In operation 20135 functions integrated in one area

1. Water buffer: 187.000 m3

2. Ecological zone between cities of Enschede and Hengelo

3. Convert effluent into an “ecological sound water”

4. Spacial planning

5. Recreation and nature close to the two citiesbronnen:Senter-Novem KRW-innovatie programmahttp://www.berflotribune.nl/images/stories/kristalbad-flyer.pdf

6

Kristalbad

Reasons for Waterharmonicas – until 2001No. Name Primary reason/reasons for construction

0 Elburg 1978: to lower the nutrient level in STP effluent, taken out

of operation. Has not been put back into operation

because of the ‘high natural values’

1 Everstekoog, Texel

1994: as a source of fresh water for agriculture on the

island, disinfection because it crosses a residential area.

Has been expanded and renovated in 2012 – 2013

2 Empuriabrava, Spain

1995: to supply water for a nature reserve/to create local

natural value

3 Klaterwater in Kaatsheuvel

1997: to produce water with a low level of nutrients and

pathogens for the Efteling

4 Tilburg-Noord 1997: to buffer effluent during rainwater discharge so as

not to exceed the maximum permissible effluent rate

because of the limited capacity of the stream de Zandleij,

ecologisation at basic discharge

5 Land van Cuijk 1999: to supply water to agriculture/nature and to reduce

discharge to national waters

6 Sint Maartensdijk 2000: to reduce nutrients and obtain insight in the

functioning of the helophyte filter, recreation

7 Waterpark Groote Beerze

2001: river restoration Groote Beerze, to promote wet

habitats

- Nutrient removal

- Buffering water

- Supply water for

agriculture, nature

Reasons for Waterharmonicas – until 2001No. Name Primary reason/reasons for

construction

8 Aqualân Grou 2006: to develop nature and a

spawning pond, demonstration project

and Urban Water Cycle Project

9 Ootmarsum 2010: ’ecologisation’ of the effluent for

discharge into a small stream and

Urban Water Cycle Project

10 Sint-Oedenrode 2011: ecological corridor, ‘natural

water’, incorporated in a trail, bird

sanctuary with watchtower

11 Kristalbad 2012: regional buffering water,

recreational green buffer zone,

ecologisation, improvement of water

quality and Dutch WFD subsidy

12 Soerendonk 2012: water buffer, recreation, to

develop natural habitats, spawning

pond/fish migration and Dutch WFD

subsidy

13 Tilburg Moerenburg 2011-2012: to buffer ‘influent’,

improving natural values, recreation, to

prevent overflow

14 Vollenhove 2012 ‘purifying riverbank

- Buffering water

- River restoration

- Surface water quality

- Fish spawning

- Making ”natural habitats”

- Recreation

- Customers relations:

“making friends”

No. Name Primary reason/reasons for

construction1a Everstekoog, Texel 2013: extension existing

Waterharmonica

15 Biest-Houtakker 2013: ’ecologisation’ of the effluent for

discharge into a small stream,

landscaping16 Dinxperloo 2014: water garden and green zone.

First Waterharmonica after a Nereda

plant17 Berkenwoude 2014 / 2015: to remove nutrients, to

make ‘living’ water, buffering

18 Amstelveen 2015?: to supply water to the urban

area, in preparation

Groote Lucht Quick-scan in 2014, multi-functional

Waterharmonica of around 100 ha

… ……

Trends:

- Sand filtration of effluent STP

- Really needed when Waterharmonica?

- Benficial to make water for providing

high-quality water fror use in cities or

nature

- Dinxperlo first Waterharmonica to

upgrade effluent of a Nereda plant

Waterharmonica’s – 2013 and beyond

Dutch Waterharmonicas - practical

Surface area: 1.2 – 40 ha

Net load: 0.02 – 1.4 m/day

Retention time 2: – 105 days

Percentage effluent: 10 – 100 %

Some characteristics:

7,500Euro per hectare per year

Range 3,000 - 25,000

higher cost for small size

175,000

Euro per hectare

Range 75,000 - 250,000

extra cost for more natural values,

recreation, water buffering

Dutch Waterharmonicas - cost

Investment Management including basic monitoring

Euro 0.05 per m3

Range 0.02 – 0.12

7

Contents




How does effluent change?

1. Suspended particles/solids

2. Pathogens

3. Organic pollution and oxygen

4. Nutrients

5. Buffering peak loads

6. Ecotoxicology

7. Ecology

1 Suspended particle/solids

What is suspended solids: different definitions :

• organic / inorganic

• living / death

• big / small

• micro-organism versus virus

• does/or not have effect op environment: pathogen

• origin: in influent or shaped in WWTP

Suspended particle/solids

Different

determination

techniques:

Often only as

“dry matter”

Part

icle

siz

e

dis

trib

utio

n

Chem

ical

part

icle

com

positi

on

Bio

logic

al

part

icle

com

positi

on

Spatia

l part

icle

str

uctu

re

Path

ogen

dete

ctio

n

Chemical analyzers X

Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (ESEM-EDX) X

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) X

Laser diffraction X

Laser back scattering X

Spatial f ilter velocimetry X

Acoustic spectrometry X

Electroresistance counting X

Flow cytometry X X

Particle video microscopy X X

Manual microscopy X

Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) X X

Environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) X X

Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) X

Indicator species culturing X

Real time quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (QPCR) X

Multiplex QPCR X

Denaturing Gel Electrophoresis (DGE) X

DNA restriction analysis X

DNA microarrays X

Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI-TOF MS) X

Coli is a

good

indicator

Suspended particles/solids

Several Dutch studies:

• Monitoring data of 8 Waterharmonica’s

• several years, monthly data, normal operation WWTP, mainly only analysed as “dry matter”

Results:

• Elburg (1978) and Everstekoog (1995): [SS]OUT ≈ [SS]IN, or even a small increase !

• Recent six constructed wetlands: same

• Low content (5 a 10 mg/l), clear water

Suspended particles/solids

Paradox! No gain? (in theory)

8


Paradox based on monitoring !

Suspended p

art

icle

s (

mg/l)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

afloop

nabezinktank

zandfilter vlooienvijver helofyten eindvijver/bos

Zw

even

desto

f m

ed

iaan

(m

g/l)

Land van Cuijk 2005-2006 Land van Cuijk 2007-2008 Land van Cuijk 2009-2010

Hapert Noord Hapert Zuid Sint Maartensdijk 2000-2002

Sint Maartensdijk 2005-2007 effluent Sint Maartensdijk 2008-2010 Kaatsheuvel

Grou Ootmarsum

1)

End WWTPAfter vertical

sand filterDaphnia Pond Reed ditches End WHH


No big change in amount but a big change in composition!

From “activated sludge (bacteria)” to “natural suspended solids”

2. Pathogens

Pathogens are (micro)-organisms that can provoke diseases as a result of exposure

• Different types (viruses, bacteria, parasite, fungi)

• Different sizes (0.002-100µm)

• Many present in waste water

• Monitoring using indicator-organisms

• Bacteria

• Fecale contamination

• Facultative anaeroob

• 2.0-0.5 µm

• Bacteria


• Facultative anaeroob

• 0.8-1.3µm

• Bacteria

• Anaerobe

• 5.0-0.5µm

E.Coli Enterococci

• Virus


• 0.026µm

Bacteriodes-fagen

Clostridium perfringens

Pathogen reduction

Reduction of pathogens in STP and Waterharmonica

• 1 to 3 log (E.coli, Enterococci)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

E. coli Enterococci C. perfringens Bacteroides-fagen (PFU)

Log 1

0K

VE

10

0m

L-1

RWZI in RWZI uit / Moeras in Moeras uit

Bathing

water

WWTP in WWTP out Waterharmonica Out

Pathogen reduction Pathogen reduction

Differences in summer - winter?

• Mainly in summer and winter

Best hygienic quality?

• Spring and autumn

Enterococci

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ponds in Ponds out Reed beds out

Winter Lente Zomer Herfst

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



E.coli

Bath

ing w

ate

r sta

ndard

Winter Spring Summer Autumn

9

Pathogen reductionWhat are the driving forces for removal?• Not sedimentation

• Natural mortality and irradiaton (but only 5-10 cm)

• Biofilm in reed is positive

• Mainly predation by zooplankton

0

100

200

300

400

0 24 48 72

E.co

li(K

VE

mL-1

)

Tijd (uur)

Met zooplankton Zonder zooplankton

0

100

200

300

400

0 24 48 72

E.co

li(K

VE

mL-1

)

Tijd (uur)

Met zooplankton Zonder zooplanktonWith Zooplankton Without Zooplankton

Empuriabrava Grou

E-Coli – how to improve

performanceLog nr/100 ml

Log removal

Wetland system Emp = 2.4 Grou = 1.5

Mesocosm Emp = 2.9 Grou = 2.3

3. Organic pollution and oxygen

The Waterharmonica:

• Convert of 10-15% of BOD to “other” BOD (see SS)

• Longer retention time: more reduction of BOD

• More natural oxygen situation

• Creates a powerfull day-night

rhythm in the oxygen level Everstekoog

4. Nutrients (P and N)

Main focuss in monitoring was on:

• Nitrogen: NH4,NO3

• Phosphorus: ortho-P (PO4-P) and P-total

Reduction expressed in change of:

• Concentration (P: -40% to +40%, N: +10 to 25%)

• Load

Relation between reduction in concentration and in load!

Waterharmonica's P-removal:

P-load (kg/ha.year) vs P-removal (%)

South - Korea

Swedish source: Flyckt, 2010Swedish source: Flyckt, 2010

Waterharmonica's P-removal:

P-load (kg/ha.year) vs P-removal (%)

P concentrations:

Sweden much lower

than Netherlands

Klaterwater in

De Efteling

10

1

Load Kg N/ha.year

N

Natural deposition

30 - 75

Fertilizer application agriculture 400 - 800

Uptake by grassN-yield

140 - 600

N-t

ota

l re

mo

val (

%)

EverstekoogHRT 1,3 – 11,3 days

ENG - N_with names STPes

South - Korea

N-removal at different loads

5. Buffering peak loads

The Waterharmonica is very effective in reducing peak pollutions of eg. a sludge overflow:

• Both Suspended Solids (90%) as P (90%) and N (60-70%)

6. EcotoxicologyThe Waterharmonica:

• Effluent from STP can have an inhibiting effect on algae development

• WFD innovation project WIPE showed: • Waterharmonica has a favourable effect on the toxicological

quality of the water in the outlet (possible by adsorption, degradation or smoothing peaks)

• No indications of risks of acute toxicity

Ecotoxicology

WIPE research on:

• Xenobiotic substances (passive sampling)

• In-vivo bioassays– Bacteria (30 min)

– Algae (72 h)

– Zooplankton (48 h)

• Fish

7. Ecology

The Waterharmonica:

• Increase natural diversity eg. by increase of Daphnia and decrease of monoculture bacteria of activated sludge, increase of vegetation and increase of number and variation of birds and fish

11

Contents




Daphnia reactor

Biological filtration

Algae reactor

for nutrient

storage

Free flow wetland

as phototrophic

biofilm reactor

Fish spawning

area to meet EU

biodiversity criteria

Or is a Waterharmonica

“Nature” ??

Is a Waterharmonica a process??

Or is a Waterharmonica a “natural process”?

Biodiversity in Waterharmonica

- Not much systematic research

- General impression:- increase of biodiversity

- for interesting biodiverity large areas with a low load

---- >>> Interesting system: - clear water, with relative high nutrients levels

- surprisingly stable, also because of rather low retention times

Daphnia food chains

Grou

Everstekoog

Empuriabrava


12

Particles

“Daphnia”

algae

Treated waste water

Nutrients

suspended

“Snails”

settled

suspendedattached to the wall

filamentous

Daphnia faeces

Storage

of

nutrients

Snail faeces

nutrients

nutrients

Esp. in mesocosms,

4 m3 wall/m3 plus 1 m2 bottom

“Daphnia”= filtering organisms

“Snails” = “underwater pigs”

Simplified scheme

Mesocosms for biological filtration

of treated waste water

Result of many discussions within the project team,

mainly in Girona

Ruud Kampf, April 2009

Biological filtration by Daphnia

Focus on ponds fed by

well treated effluent

from activated sludge plants


Everstekoog

Ponds and Mesocosmsfrom 1998 - 2006

Plus Garmerwolde

2011 and 2012

Mesocosms Horstermeer, autumn 2007

Not only Daphnia:


Suspended material and benthic algae:

• biological filtration by Daphnia

• mainly Daphnia magna, but also other Cladocera

Attached algae and settled sludge:

• grazing by snails• Holland: mainly Great pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis

What do the Daphnia eat?

Algae or/and Sludge ??


13

juni 2006.

Relative occurance of the Annelida at each sample sites

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. Start Daphnia pond (n=452)

2. End daphnia Pond (n=11)

3. Division ditch (n=96)

4. Start reed ditches (n=55)

5. End reed ditches (n=7)

6.Spaw ning pond (n=19)

7. Flow ing surface w ater (n=7)

Lumbriculidae

(n=366)

Helobdella stagnalis

(n=233)

Erpobdella octoculata

(n=31)

Erpodbella rood (n=4)

Theromyzon

tessulatum (n=3)

Haementeria costata

(n=6)

Annelida:

The oligochaeta (lumbriculidae) are an indicator for dirty water. They occur at the beginning and not at the end of the Waterharmonica

Fish in spawning area Aqualan Grou 2008 – 2012

Birds on www.waarneming.nl

Interesting to bring the

experiences together

…..

Your opinion please, or first a drink?

everstekoog, texel · food chains grou everstekoog empuriabrava clear water through nature. 4...

Documents